Chris Lombardi puts defense and security under the spotlight, as he shares his takes on recent NATO and EU cooperation and provides insight into the company’s own long-term strategic partnerships in Europe.

Three trends are currently driving the global electricity sector: decarbonization, decentralization and differentiation. Utilities are making significant contributions to mitigate carbon emissions, while a technology revolution is …

“What will the next revolution in advanced aircraft be?” asks one of the slick advertisements, showcasing a mysterious, tailless aircraft parked in a darkened hangar and draped with a tarp.

The campaign by defense giant Northrop Grumman, specifically targeted at the Washington market, is the most visible evidence of the behind-the-scenes battle to build the Air Force’s new stealth bomber, a deal with an estimated value of at least $55 billion.

Defense officials are expected to choose a winner for the highly classified Long Range Strike Bomber as soon as this summer. And the face-off between Northrop and a powerhouse team of Boeing and Lockheed Martin is shaping up to be a political slugfest like few others at a time when the Pentagon is buying fewer major new weapons.

The companies’ representatives have trekked to scores of congressional offices in recent months to talk up the program, according to industry officials — especially from Northrop and Lockheed. A small army of retired generals, lobbyists and consultants are also pressing the case.

Northrop employees’ political action committee is also gearing up for a big push, according to an industry official with direct knowledge of it. The most recent filings with the Federal Election Commission show it has more than $3.3 million on hand compared with Lockheed’s $1.8 million and Boeing’s $745,000 — a major advantage for spreading around campaign donations.

Both sides are also honing their strategies for what to do if they lose, according to several insiders who were not authorized to speak publicly, including ways to try to overturn the Pentagon’s decision.

On the line is nothing less than the future of the military aircraft industry itself, say industry analysts.

“There’s an awful lot at stake here, both in terms of dollars and the future of two companies as military air framers,” said Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group, an aerospace consulting group in Fairfax, Virginia. “If Boeing doesn’t get it, then they can make a choice: Either get out of combat aircraft or buy Northrop’s aircraft unit. If Northrop doesn’t, well, that’s the end of any dream of ever being a military air framer again, or a combat air framer again.”

The stakes are so high that lawmakers far outside of Washington are offering incentives of their own. California’s Legislature has offered about $500 million in tax incentives for companies working on the bomber, hoping that whoever wins, Northrop or Lockheed will bring lucrative aerospace work back to their labs and factories in Palmdale.

Florida state lawmakers offered incentives of their own to try to get Northrop to assemble aircraft in Melbourne, near an area reeling from the end of the glory days of the space program. The company has said it’ll probably build the bombers in Palmdale, but has promised to do some important work in Melbourne if it wins — expanding the political support for its bid. Missouri lawmakers, meanwhile, want the Air Force to pick Boeing so the company builds its new aircraft outside St. Louis.

Whichever team wins, production of up to 100 bombers means significant economic benefits for subcontractors across the country building radars, communications networks, engines, landing gear and any number of other components. The Pentagon wants the aircraft to be “modular,” says Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall, meaning the Air Force would hold competitions for its major sub-systems that would pit competitors against each other with the hope of driving down prices for taxpayers.

First, though, the Pentagon must pick a prime vendor to build the aircraft.

Conventional wisdom says Lockheed and Boeing, the world’s largest and second-largest defense contractors, are the front-runners. Company insiders said they have proven they could succeed together on the Air Force’s F-22 Raptor, for which Lockheed was the prime and Boeing its subcontractor. The two firms delivered some 300 military aircraft combined last year. Size, scale and expertise make them the stronger team, the companies say.

Northrop does not agree it’s an underdog, but it also does not operate on the same scale. So it has gone on offense. In addition to its much larger PAC balance, its financial disclosures for last year show it is taking a major gamble on landing the bomber contract.

The company “right now is investing very significantly in [research and development] targeted at the aerospace systems sector — which is, of course, Long Range Strike Bomber,” said Jim McAleese, whose consulting firm specializes in government contracts. “Everything they are spending is going into two facilities down in Florida, one is their St. Augustine, Fla., facility, which is their manned aircraft integration center, and the other is Melbourne, Fla., which fundamentally is their manned aircraft design center.”

Northrop’s slick ad campaign, which began during the Super Bowl and has not let up since, reflects its desire to remind decision makers that it has plenty of experience building aircraft that evade enemy radars — especially the Air Force’s iconic B-2 Spirit.

“This is what we do,” attest the ads, some of which have appeared in POLITICO.

“Our intended audience is composed of decision makers and influencers who have cognizance over next generation aircraft,” said Randy Belote, the Northrop’s vice president of strategic communications.

If Northrop’s ads are all about airplanes, Boeing’s are nearly all about people — actors playing engineers working with civilian airliners, military fighters and NASA spacecraft. Boeing and Lockheed believe the strength of their brands, not TV commercials, are going to help them win.

“Advertising will not change anyone’s perception of our ability to deliver,” said Todd Blecher, director of external communications for Boeing Defense, Space and Security.

Northrop, Boeing and Lockheed declined to comment publicly on their respective proposals or strategies for landing the contract, citing the classified nature of the technologies and clear instructions from the Air Force not to discuss the competition publicly.

The Air Force says the politicking over what could be called the “B-3” bomber has no bearing on the decision about who builds it.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh told reporters when asked about the commercials: “It has nothing to do with the choice for the program.”

He said he’s “excited” for this summer’s decision on the bomber, and expressed high confidence the Air Force can achieve its estimated cost cap of $550 million per aircraft, whichever design is selected.

“I was very confident in both teams that were working bids before the bids were actually submitted.” Welsh said. “I visited both. I was impressed by both, with the work they’d been doing, and so I’m excited to see how this moves forward,” he said.

Choosing one winner means choosing one loser, however. Another industry official directly involved in the program said the lobbying campaign underway is also designed to lay the groundwork for a likely fight waged by the losing team.

“It will be protested,” predicted the source, who was not authorized to speak publicly about internal deliberations.

Others closely monitoring the program also say not far from Northrop and the Air Force’s minds is its bitter experience of the KC-X program, the Air Force’s next generation of air refueling tankers.

Northrop, in partnership with the European aircraft maker Airbus, won the lucrative deal in 2008, but a protest by Boeing filed with the Government Accountability Office forced the Pentagon to rebid it. Boeing later won after a major public relations and lobbying push on Capitol Hill.

“Looming somewhere in the background are memories of the tanker deal,” said the industry source.

Moreover, the Air Force’s bomber program has already been canceled once, and it has also struggled to buy a new search-and-rescue helicopter, attack aircraft for the Afghan military, new satellites and other major upgrades. That means the pressure is on for service officials to run a clean competition, defend the choice they make and then get to work fielding the bombers they want on time and on cost.

“Both companies have a chance,” said Curtis Bedke, a retired Air Force major general and defense industry consultant who was formerly head of the Air Force Research Laboratory “There’s a good chance it’s a real fair fight.”

Related Content

Chris Lombardi puts defense and security under the spotlight, as he shares his takes on recent NATO and EU cooperation and provides insight into the company’s own long-term strategic partnerships in Europe.